 |
 |
Hi Ken and Indra, Religions develop by social groups as supernaturally-sanctioned cover stories for the theft and murder of others. It informs young men that, after death in battle, paradise awaits. Young women, for their part, are inspired to become breeding machines to increase both regimental weight and more wombs for future conquests. On a comparative basis, societies that score high on religious indices correlate both with a profusion of militarism and high fertility. An obvious spin-off to this format is a genre of violence that is directed inwards-- towards other members of the society itself. This, in great measure, fills the stochastic gap between poverty and violence. For example, it would be expected that returning vets from Iraq, where the casual murder of civilians is altogether accepted, would in a significant minority forget that domestic and barroom disputes are not, for the most part, adequate pretext for the taking of (American) life. In post 1857 India, the Thugee cult sanctioned the murder of westerners under the pretext of speaking for Shiva. As Shivaism still exists, one would not be surprised that police interrogations of present day killers reveal the same motive. Being spoken to by god is simply the default reasoning of all serial murderers; and, again, the ur-example of this rests in the story of Abraham. Religions exhibit a secondary function of ethical control within a society infested with militarism: serving as an intellectual buffer, as it were, to the thrust of bringing the violence home. Indeed, your SJ story serves as a wonderful example of social work under divine sanction; but at the same time the Pope was cleverly ridding Western Europe of its knightly class of thugs-on -horseback by the expedient of starting a foreign war on pretext. This is called "the Crusades". Under one institutional roof, then, we have two departments; respectively, the Secretariats of External and Internal Ethical Affairs. How others are treated is obviously not the same is how we want to treat ourselves. Yet frequently there arises bureaucratic conflict within the grey areas. For example, is it okay to torture Christian American citizens as if they were some sorry Islamic Raghead? And how about the Islamics of long residence in the USA? Inquiring religious minds want to know. Today one speaks of cinematic "ontology" in a loosely Quinean sense, and even as possessing various "epistemes" in the manner of Foucault. Tavernier was lucid in his presentation, and in the sense of Badiou created an "Event" with Judge and Assassin. Hitchcock's clarity functions on a more subliminal level (and thank you, Ken, for such an enticing description!), but I inquire: What, today, do we have in America in terms of a frame of reference adequate to the issues raises by Ken and Indra? Kill Bill? Or perhaps the quant moralisms of Eastwood and Spielberg? Bill Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Mogg<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:28 AM Subject: Serial-killers (and Hitchcock films, including PSYCHO) I thank Indra for his post about the Mumbai, India, serial-killer Raman Raghav. I take this matter up, Indra, mainly because it bears out what Alfred Hitchcock always knew, and had a character say in one of his films (FRENZY, 1972), that 'Religious and sexual mania are often closely linked.' Such figures recur in Hitchcock's films, from the eponymous lodger (Ivor Novello) in THE LODGER (1926) to Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten) in SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943) to, yes, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) in PSYCHO (1960) and Bob Rusk (Barry Foster) in FRENZY. The lodger was loosely based on the prostitute-slaying (and eviscerating) Jack the Ripper. (At one point Hitchcock photographed the character with a cross-like shadow on his face.) Uncle Charlie was based on a couple of real-life serial-killers, including Earle Nelson, whose principal victims were landladies. One survivor remembered that he had wanted a quiet room because 'he was a religious man of high ideals'. He thought his face resembled Christ's. Norman Bates has religious pictures in his house and motel. He was based, in part, by author Robert Bloch on the killer Ed Gein who had lived a reclusive life in outback Wisconsin. But also, Norman is said to have been part-based by Bloch on one Calvin Thomas Beck, horror and science fiction fan who published and edited the respected fan magazine 'Castle of Frankenstein' and was totally dominated by his mother, even after his father had passed away (in circumstances reminscent of THE OLD DARK HOUSE). (For more, go to: http://www.bmonster.com/horror29.html<http://www.bmonster.com/horror29.html>.) I'm told that among Beck's interests were 'theosophy, lost continents, and other sci-fi fannish fads'. As for Bob Rusk in FRENZY, he appears to have been a composite of such killers as Gordon Cummins, Neville Heath, John Christie, and the so-called 'Jack the Stripper' who had recently killed several women and dumped their bodies in the Thames. America has had many serial-killers who, like Raghav, roamed the highways and freeways, picking up victims. Drifter Henry Lee Lucas claimed 200 victims, mostly young children and women whom he met during his travels across the country during the 1970s and 1980s. Now, I see no reason not to suspect that some religious fanatics, even in high places, including religious officialdom, aren't driven by a dynamic PARALLEL TO or THE MIRROR OF that which drove some of the above-named killers. But I also suspect that NONE OF US is without questionable or base motives which, fortunately, have been sublimated in relatively altruistic and pro-social (as opposed to anti-social) lifestyles. (Note. Some of the above killers were clearly damaged goods. In the case of Earle Nelson, for example, it is said that he suffered significant brain damage when, at the age of 10, he was knocked down by a streetcar and was unconscious for six days.) The Jesuits used to have a saying, 'An idle mind is the Devil's playground'. I can almost hear Alfred Hitchcock, the maker of PSYCHO, commenting, 'That's very wise!' If anyone can recommend some relevant texts, or has related thoughts, I would be grateful to hear (about) them. - Ken M http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html<http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html> * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>. Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html> For help email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com<http://www.film-philosophy.com/> Contact: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ** * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **